So...Jokic with 1 title and 3 MVPs probably overtake Moses all time right?

[iamgine]

Cause who in their right mind would pick Moses over Jokic?

[SouBeachTalents]

He probably overtake him.

[Kblaze8855]

If you’re of that opinion it’s unlikely the accolades are why. People were saying he’s the best center ever when Kareem has six MVPs and six championships and was all nba first team at 22 and 39. The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended.. And for someone choosing to ignore it? They probably have him over Moses already despite the extreme vast majority of those people having never seen him play a game.

It’s not really a comparison. One side isn’t seriously considered. But Moses is like that against a lot of people. He was generally considered the best player in a league that had bird magic and Kareem but He would lose any poll versus those players.

Jokic could conceivably be that guy for this era in 40 years. If Moses can go have 31 and 15 seasons, and both drag bums to the finals and win the ring once he was given a team that should have been able to almost entirely because his approach wasn’t considered spectacular or sexy? I don’t see why Joker can’t.

I personally find him entertaining but I’ve also heard him likened to a loaf of bread. Filling but boring being the comparison.

You have to have that “it” factor to last in the minds of history. Both had the “it” factor on the floor but in the minds of fans?

I don’t know. He was neck and neck with KD in all star voting. I’m not sure what it’s gonna look like long term following wise.

If you think accolades and ability are always enough you’re gonna be sorely disappointed.

He might need a run of rings to do it. Not that that always does it either. Tim Duncan is already fading into the mists of time and he retired like 45 minutes ago.

[Carbine]

If you’re of that opinion it’s unlikely the accolades are why. People were saying he’s the best center ever when Kareem has six MVPs and six championships and was all nba first team at 22 and 39. The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended.. And for someone choosing to ignore it? They probably have him over Moses already despite the extreme vast majority of those people having never seen him play a game.

It’s not really a comparison. One side isn’t seriously considered. But Moses is like that against a lot of people. He was generally considered the best player in a league that had bird magic and Kareem but He would lose any poll versus those players.

Jokic could conceivably be that guy for this era in 40 years. If Moses can go have 31 and 15 seasons, and both drag bums to the finals and win the ring once he was given a team that should have been able to almost entirely because his approach wasn’t considered spectacular or sexy? I don’t see why Joker can’t.

I personally find him entertaining but I’ve also heard him likened to a loaf of bread. Filling but boring being the comparison.

You have to have that “it” factor to last in the minds of history. Both had the “it” factor on the floor but in the minds of fans?

I don’t know. He was neck and neck with KD in all star voting. I’m not sure what it’s gonna look like long term following wise.

If you think accolades and ability are always enough you’re gonna be sorely disappointed.

He might need a run of rings to do it. Not that that always does it either. Tim Duncan is already fading into the mists of time and he retired like 45 minutes ago.


Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

[1987_Lakers]

Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

As a top 5-7 player ever? Probably not, but most players who are in their prime are rarely already considered top 10 players ever, that discussion starts when they are in their 30's and I always saw Duncan get put on top 7-10 lists while he was in his early 30's. He was regarded as the best "power forward ever" by the time he was like 28. He was always highly thought of.

[Baller234]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.

[Kblaze8855]

Duncan is still regarded today at a top 5-7 player ever. If anything, Duncan got a post career boost. Which was shocking to me. He was not thought of THAT high while he was near his prime.

perhaps to some people like us. But we don’t really represent widespread opinions.

[SouBeachTalents]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.
I wouldn't say they mean "jack shit". Sure, no metric is perfect and you're always going to have outliers like Shaq only winning 1 & Nash winning 2, but you look at the multiple MVP winners, they align with the players considered the greatest of all time, which I feel is consistent with all the major sports.

[1987_Lakers]

Daily reminder that MVP awards mean jack shit in the grand scheme of things, whether the award was deserved or undeserved in any given year.

It's the "best picture" award for sports. It means nothing. It's just opinion and narrative.

Dances with Wolves won best picture over Goodfellas, has the NBA ever messed up an MVP award like that? I think not.

[Baller234]

Dances with Wolves won best picture over Goodfellas, has the NBA ever messed up an MVP award like that? I think not.

Two things:

- Goodfellas and DWW are both great movies, so there's no formula that determines which one was "better".

- Russell Westbrook has an MVP award.

[Baller234]

I wouldn't say they mean "jack shit". Sure, no metric is perfect and you're always going to have outliers like Shaq only winning 1 & Nash winning 2, but you look at the multiple MVP winners, they align with the players considered the greatest of all time, which I feel is consistent with all the major sports.

They mean jack shit when comparing all time greats.

If you have an MVP award, it doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that you were "probably" one of the best players in the league that year. It's not a clear cut indication that you were the absolute best.

[1987_Lakers]

Two things:

- Goodfellas and DWW are both great movies, so there's no formula that determines which one was "better".

- Russell Westbrook has an MVP award.

Dances with Wolves a "great movie"????

https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYmo4Zm01c2FlMWkzaHhlZjA3N2JiYmt 2ZmVqcnk5cW9oaWhvd3MwbiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/J2DYCDA15pTau86IGr/giphy.gif

[SouBeachTalents]

They mean jack shit when comparing all time greats.

If you have an MVP award, it doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that you were "probably" one of the best players in the league that year. It's not a clear cut indication that you were the absolute best.
For that specific season? I'd say that's true, especially over the last decade or so. But you look at the guys who have 3+, with the exception of Moses, those are all considered top 10 players ever, and you move that up to 4+, those guys all get legitimate claims as the GOAT. So while I would agree MVP isn't a perfect metric, in the overall scheme of things, it still shows a pretty accurate representation of the who the greatest players of all time are.

[Baller234]

Dances with Wolves a "great movie"????

https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYmo4Zm01c2FlMWkzaHhlZjA3N2JiYmt 2ZmVqcnk5cW9oaWhvd3MwbiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/J2DYCDA15pTau86IGr/giphy.gif

Stop.

[Baller234]

For that specific season? I'd say that's true, especially over the last decade or so. But you look at the guys who have 3+, with the exception of Moses, those are all considered top 10 players ever, and you move that up to 4+, those guys all get legitimate claims as the GOAT. So while I would agree MVP isn't a perfect metric, in the overall scheme of things, it still shows a pretty accurate representation of the who the greatest players ever are.

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.

[1987_Lakers]

Not only did Dances with Wolves win best picture over Goodfellas, but Kevin Costner won best director over Scorsese that same year, what is wrong with this world?

I get it, Goodfellas was violent which might have been off-putting to some of the hollywood voters, but in no way is Dances With Wolves a better movie.

[Phoenix]

If that's the metric being used you could probably put him over anyone outside who we generally accept as top 10 players. I mean, just off those accolades what cases do guys like West or Oscar have over him? Or Dr.J ( in terms of his NBA career)? Is he ahead of David Robinson, Dirk, Garnett? Should he be soon if not already? Where are we ranking Steph and KD nowadays?

The criteria on how we're ranking these guys has no consistency.

[SouBeachTalents]

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.
Of course, you're going to find outliers in every metric, and I'm not advocating MVP is the end all be all, I just disagree with the notion that they don't matter at all like you're claiming. They definitely have at least some significance, and it's not a coincidence the majority of the ATG's have won it multiple times.

[Baller234]

Of course, you're going to find outliers in every metric, and I'm not advocating MVP is the end all be all, I just disagree with the notion that they don't matter at all like you're claiming. They definitely have at least some significance, and it's not a coincidence the majority of the ATG's have won it multiple times.

The award has significance if you're comparing Jokic to someone like John Stockton. You can argue that because Stockton was never even in consideration for the award, it's probably an indicator he wasn't as good.

It doesn't have significance if you're comparing Jokic to someone like Kobe or Shaq. You can't just say "Well they only have 1 MVP so they weren't as good..."

[Phoenix]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

[FultzNationRISE]

The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended..

This.

[Baller234]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

Ok so let's run with this.

If you have an MVP award, it means either:

- You were at worst top 3

- You weren't top 3 but the media was taken in by a feel good story


Translation = the award is mostly meaningless.

The lesson I take away from this is to not get caught up in MVP discussions or use it as a criteria for comparing greats.

[tpols]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

Nash was legit. He made those suns teams a powerhouse GOAT level offense. #1 ranked offense and #1 in team assists for many years in a row. Best PnR player ever imo and they got robbed of a title in 2007.

[Phoenix]

Ok so let's run with this.

If you have an MVP award, it means either:

- You were at worst top 3

- You weren't top 3 but the media was taken in by a feel good story


Translation = the award is mostly meaningless.

The lesson I take away from this is to not get caught up in MVP discussions or use it as a criteria for comparing greats.

Wasn't always the case until those scenarios I mentioned cropped up. Generally speaking, the players who have the most MVP awards like Kareem, Russell, Jordan, Lebron, Magic and Bird are or were considered the best or among the very best so it was more 1:1 with MVP= best player than Steve Nash winning two in a league that had Shaq, Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, Garnett all at or near their primes.

So is it all bullshit? Ultimately, it's just a bullet point but like any other achievement in these conversations often lacks context but not bias.

[Phoenix]

Nash was legit. He made those suns teams a powerhouse GOAT level offense. #1 ranked offense and #1 in team assists for many years in a row. Best PnR player ever imo and they got robbed of a title in 2007.

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

[tpols]

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

Nash was as good as anybody in the league in the mid 2000s. Unlike Westbrook and Rose who were phonies in the playoffs, Nash actually showed up when it counted.

[elementally morale]

I'm not sure where MVP awards should catapult you but Jokic was more deserving last year than this year. Had he won last year and if he goes on and get it this year we would look at 4 MVPs in a row. That's a legacy in itself. At any rate, if by the end of the season it will be: Jokic 3, Giannis 2, Embiid 1, I think that is a fair representation big picture wise.

Based on ability, Jokic is clearly a top 10 player to me but to get there legacy wise he needs more FMVPs and some longevity at the top. Another 5 years and two more rings should do it. The way he plays he can be effective for quite a few years especially given today's care. The bigger question is whether he will want to do it. If he will sign another contract he is going to honor that. I'm not sure he will sign another contract though. I rarely say this but in his case I simply hope he is or will get greedy enough to stay in it for the money.

Right now I'd say he is a top 15-20 player all time but still has a potentially very long way to go. If we are not talking legacy just ability to play he is as good as anybody I've ever seen play basketball. No need to compare him to players of eras far away. He just needs to prove he is the best to do it in the 2020s. So far he absolutely is but the decade is young. More Finals, rings, FMVPs and seasons is the way to go.

[elementally morale]

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

I think Nash was top 3 for a couple of years.

[ArbitraryWater]

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.


So what?


All that means is they were better than their contemporaries, not the other.

Bird could have 0 MVPs if he played his career next to MJ under similar teammates and Nash could have 3 reasonable MVPs and it still wouldnt make the MVP "wrong".

[Phoenix]

Nash was as good as anybody in the league in the mid 2000s.

Sure, if you ignore Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk, 2005 Shaq, 2006 Wade, 2006 Lebron.

[Phoenix]

I think Nash was top 3 for a couple of years.

See above. I guess I need to know what the argument is.

[elementally morale]

See above. I guess I need to know what the argument is.

The argument is basketball is not an individual game. For a few years Nash was better than Garnett, Dirk and aging Shaq even individually. However, top 3 or top 5 doesn't matter that much, I agree Nash was never the best individual player in the NBA.

Back on topic, I think Jokic is better than Nash ever was. If he wins MVP we can say the best player got the award.

[Baller234]

So what?


All that means is they were better than their contemporaries, not the other.

Bird could have 0 MVPs if he played his career next to MJ under similar teammates and Nash could have 3 reasonable MVPs and it still wouldnt make the MVP "wrong".

I didn't say the awards were wrong. I said the awards were meaningless.

Okay great, let's Nash "deserved" the MVP... And? Does him having two of them make him better than other greats who only have one? No, hence it's all but a meaningless criteria for comparing great players against other great players. Like others have said, it's a footnote at best. It means nothing.

[Phoenix]

The argument is basketball is not an individual game. For a few years Nash was better than Garnett, Dirk and aging Shaq even individually. However, top 3 or top 5 doesn't matter that much, I agree Nash was never the best individual player in the NBA.



Telling me that basketball is not an individual game doesn't address why you think Nash was individually better than the players you list. I won't strongly argue with like 2006 Shaq because that was end of his prime and Wade ultimately drove that bus overall( Shaq was the front seat passenger of course), but what's the argument for him over Duncan, Garnett, Kobe and Dirk in 2005 and 2006 as an individual player?

[elementally morale]

Telling me that basketball is not an individual game doesn't address why you think Nash was individually better than the players you list. I won't strongly argue with like 2006 Shaq because that was end of his prime and Wade ultimately drove that bus overall( Shaq was the front seat passenger of course), but what's the argument for him over Duncan, Garnett, Kobe and Dirk in 2005 and 2006 as an individual player?

He wasn't. He had more impact on the outcome than Dirk or Garnett and probably more impact between 2005-2008 than Kobe. It's not something I want to really defend though because it's a judgment call and I'm fine with someone else going the other way. I remember Nash being a top player in the mid 2000s. Never with the peak impact of Shaq or Duncan sure. He probably got lucky with his MVPs but the Suns then new-look offense and success created a cindarella narrative.

As great as Nash was, Jokic is on another level. He is on the Tim Duncan level just with less team success so far. If he were to win two more FMVPs I'd definitely have him top 10.

[Phoenix]

He wasn't. He had more impact on the outcome than Dirk or Garnett and probably more impact between 2005-2008 than Kobe. It's not something I want to really defend though because it's a judgment call and I'm fine with someone else going the other way. I remember Nash being a top player in the mid 2000s. Never with the peak impact of Shaq or Duncan sure. He probably got lucky with his MVPs but the Suns then new-look offense and success created a cindarella narrative.

.

Nash was a top player before the mid 2000's, already making all-star teams and 3rd team all-NBA. I think the reason he's given an asterisk, fairly or otherwise, is his ascent at 32( an unlikely age for a small PG) as an MVP level player had the 1-2 punch of the 2004 perimeter rule changes plus D'Antoni's system. I feel like the circumstances around him made him more effective than actually being a better player than he already was, whether that's a relevant distinction to make for this discussion I'm not sure. At the very least, guys who were MVP level talents prior to those changes and while Nash was peaking should get some benefit of the doubt here. Garnett and Kobe had shitty talent around them in 2005 and 2006. Dirk beat Nash head to head in the 2006 WCFs with teams that I would consider to be fairly equal or comparable especially with Amare out. If anything I might lean with the Suns having Marion, Diaw, Thomas and Barbosa over Howard, Terry and Stackhouse. At worst it's a wash and Dirk was the best player in the series.

I agree with the idea that Jokic is Duncan level as a performer, obviously there is a sizable defensive chasm but Jokic is one of the top offensive players ever so it balances out.

[elementally morale]

I agree with the idea that Jokic is Duncan level as a performer, obviously there is a sizable defensive chasm but Jokic is one of the top offensive players ever so it balances out.

If you watch him play he has a lot more defensive impact now than he had 2-3 years ago. He is no Duncan as an individual defender but his team defense is very good and if you take a look at team stats those are backing up this eye test. He is pictured as a horrible defender that hurts the team on that end but it's not true any more. Actually, he plays the two halves differently. It's important for the team for him to stay on the floor so in the first half of game she doesn't take chances with fouls. After a received basket he is very quick to run the offense. In the second half he defends better. It's not easy to score on him in the 4th quarter. Him being a bad defender is more of a reputation now than reality. He is not Gobert, sure. But good offense beats good defense in today's game and it is apparent on the other end: even the best individual defenders cannot contain Jokic one on one. So his individual defense simply doesn't hurt the team that much. Btw, if mor econtact was allowed, Jokic would be a better defender.

[Phoenix]

If you watch him play he has a lot more defensive impact now than he had 2-3 years ago. He is no Duncan as an individual defender but his team defense is very good and if you take a look at team stats those are backing up this eye test. He is pictured as a horrible defender that hurts the team on that end but it's not true any more. Actually, he plays the two halves differently. It's important for the team for him to stay on the floor so in the first half of game she doesn't take chances with fouls. After a received basket he is very quick to run the offense. In the second half he defends better. It's not easy to score on him in the 4th quarter. Him being a bad defender is more of a reputation now than reality. He is not Gobert, sure. But good offense beats good defense in today's game and it is apparent on the other end: even the best individual defenders cannot contain Jokic one on one. So his individual defense simply doesn't hurt the team that much. Btw, if mor econtact was allowed, Jokic would be a better defender.

Oh I agree, I'm not saying he's a bad defender or a lamppost by any means. I'm just saying when comparing him to Duncan the most obvious point of difference is defense, but Jokic overall offensively is much more dynamic than Timmy ever was so I think it makes it a push overall.

[John8204]

LOL no Moses has 10,000 more rebounds and 17,000 more points...people forget this guy retired 5th in Rebounds and 3rd in points. Jokic is on pace but what happens if he retires sub 20K points? Are you going to rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant? Is he getting close to Curry? Has he even moved past Harden, CPIII, and Kwahi

[elementally morale]

Oh I agree, I'm not saying he's a bad defender or a lamppost by any means. I'm just saying when comparing him to Duncan the most obvious point of difference is defense, but Jokic overall offensively is much more dynamic than Timmy ever was so I think it makes it a push overall.

Jokic plays two totally different halves. In the first he is running and gets most of his assists, not really looking the game individually on either end. In the second half he starts scoring more and plays lot tougher defense. This is the case most nights. And his rebounding is really interesting: when he cares he casually grabs 15-20. Most of the time he is 'just there' if someone else has a chance to get the defensive board Jokic lets them do it. Not in the 4th.

[elementally morale]

LOL no Moses has 10,000 more rebounds and 17,000 more points...people forget this guy retired 5th in Rebounds and 3rd in points. Jokic is on pace but what happens if he retires sub 20K points? Are you going to rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant? Is he getting close to Curry? Has he even moved past Harden, CPIII, and Kwahi

I rank him ahead of Giannis and Durant right now. I'd say in the same range but Jokic seems to be better than both. Not ahead of Curry yet, but definitely ahead of Harden and CP3. Kawhi I cannot rank. All the talent with very limited playing time. As for Moses Malone, I didn't see him play that much. I was paying too much attention to Bird and Magic and I was young. So I have no opinion.

[warriorfan]

Moses can get underrated because his game was ugly. He was a super high motor big man who cleaned up everything around the rim. He was very dominant though and played for along time

[1987_Lakers]

Moses can get underrated because his game was ugly. He was a super high motor big man who cleaned up everything around the rim. He was very dominant though and played for along time

I believe he is fairly ranked. Yes, he was the best player in the league at one point, but what holds him down is that his game was pretty one dimensional compared to the other all-time great centers.

[John8204]

I believe he is fairly ranked. Yes, he was the best player in the league at one point, but what holds him down is that his game was pretty one dimensional compared to the other all-time great centers.

yeah but when that one dimension is scoring 30K points...only two other men (Wilt and KAJ) had done that at that time.

I like Jokic but I'm not ranking him ahead of Giannis and Durant at this point in time. I'm willing to put him ahead of David Robinson this year at best.

[1987_Lakers]

yeah but when that one dimension is scoring 30K points...only two other men (Wilt and KAJ) had done that at that time.

Obviously it's a great milestone, (even though he finished his NBA/ABA career 29k points, not 30) but does that really matter when comparing players? John Havlicek at one point was 3rd in total career points, ahead of guys like Jerry West.

[John8204]

Obviously it's a great milestone, (even though he finished his NBA/ABA career 29k points, not 30) but does that really matter when comparing players? John Havlicek at one point was 3rd in total career points, ahead of guys like Jerry West.

I don't know about the ABA conversion rate but didn't he finish with 31793. I think bench marks are important I think you need to break certain threshholds before placing someone on all-time lists. You can rank Jerry ahead of John because it's only 1,000 point difference between the two. At one point we had Kevin Durant in the top 10 based on his early career numbers but things happen. Is a single ring really enough to put him in the top 20 or even 30 now

[warriorfan]

I believe he is fairly ranked. Yes, he was the best player in the league at one point, but what holds him down is that his game was pretty one dimensional compared to the other all-time great centers.

Yes, that is my point. His game was one dimensional yet he still managed to dominate. I believe that gets held against some players unfairly. In the end, results matter.

Even that being said Jokic is climbing fast, this peak he’s having is legendary, even if he quits today it’s going to be something that will be talked about for along time.

[Phoenix]

At one point we had Kevin Durant in the top 10 based on his early career numbers but things happen.

https://media.tenor.com/CBLX9z1_Dn4AAAAM/fresh-prince-we.gif

Who is we?

[Thenameless]

They are such different players. What I remember most was that as a Lakers fan, Moses Malone was frightening in 1983. A player that could call Fo Fo Fo - a player that you could do nothing about. Having said that, Jokic has such a fantastic all-around offensive game that gets his teammates involved, the subtleties are beautiful to watch. Maybe it's recency bias that has me leaning toward Jokic, but I know that if prime Moses stepped on to the court against my team, I'd be nervous.